My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1980_1222_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1980
>
1980_1222_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2012 4:31:27 PM
Creation date
1/30/2012 4:29:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CASE NUMBER: 1280 -80 <br />.APPLICANT: Alex Mi n ich <br />C <br />3 December 1980 <br />Page Two <br />cases to handle any new apartment structures (or conversions) on an <br />individual case basis rather than revise the ordinance. You will recall <br />that both the Planning commission and Council adopted housing policies <br />in their recent Comprehensive Plan indicating a desire to have a broader <br />base of housing types within the City. It would appear that the allowance <br />for efficiency units is in ]peeping with that policy. <br />5. With respect to the zoning, the land is currently zoned B-1. When the <br />B -1 Zone was initially established in the ordinance in 1959, apartment <br />structures were permitted as a special use. Subsequent to that time, <br />apartments were taken out of the B -1 Zone. Thus, under the current ordinance <br />it is prohibited to build apartment structures in the B -1 Zone. This <br />theoretically makes the existing apartment }wilding a non - conforming use <br />and theoretically wou 1 d not be allowed to be reconstructed if it were <br />destroyed beyond 50 percent. The rezoning then, is simply to put the <br />existing land use into conformance with the ordinance by rezoning the <br />land to R--3A Multiple Residence District. <br />6. The staff has worked closely with Mr. Minich and his consultants in <br />preparation of the plans and application. Barring unforeseen circumstances, <br />it would appear that the proposal Netits a positive review, and will not <br />adversely affect contiguous properties or the community as a whole i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.